1. Technical Field
The present invention relates generally to exterior visors for automotive vehicles; and, more particularly, to an improved visor construction formed of two or more visor sections adapted to be rigidly secured together when placed in end-to-end relation and which may be formed of any conventional material such, merely by way of example, as: synthetic plastic materials vacuum molded or otherwise formed into the desired shape; fiberglass; chromium plated synthetic plastic materials or fiberglass; or metal. Moreover, exterior visors embodying the features of the present invention may be of the conventional "flush-mounted" type or the conventional "flow-through" type; and, further, they may be formed with or without one or more air scoops, transverse louvers and/or other types of both functional and aesthetically pleasing decorative features which typify existing visor constructions available in the marketplace today.
2. Background Art
Historically, exterior sun or rain visors for automotive vehicles trace their origins to the general period of the 1940s at a time when there was a functional demand for such products since tinted glass was not then available for use or, at least, was not commonly used, with automotive vehicle windows. Such visors were, therefore, commonly used to provide a functional advantage, preferably, but not exclusively, in shielding the vehicle's occupants from the sun's glare; and, at the outset, a pleasant aesthetic appearance, while desirable, was not an essential characteristic of such products and, for the most part, was not typical of the visor products then available.
By the 1950s, however, tinted glass became commonly available and was regularly used for automotive vehicle windows; and, as a consequence, the functional need for such exterior vehicle visors was significantly decreased. This fact, coupled with the fact that such visors as were then available did not present a pleasing aesthetic appearance and were obviously "add on" accessories rather than factory installed equipment caused lack of commercial acceptance and consequent non-use of such products.
During the latter 1960s and continuing into the 1970s, however, demand for exterior visors again increased. Many factors undoubtedly contributed to such increased demand including, for exmaple: (i) the progressively more streamlined aerodynamic design of automotive vehicles resulting in windshields which flared backwardly at acute included angles with the horizontal; (ii) increased usage of automobiles and greater exposure of the vehicle's occupants to undesired glare conditions; (iii) improved availability of inexpensive, strong and lightweight materials; and (iv), improved manufacturing technologies which enabled accessory manufacturers to make products that were not only pleasing in appearance from an aesthetic standpoint, but, which also appeared to be of the factory installed type rather than presenting the impression of being "add on" equipment.
Simultaneous with the increased demand for exterior visors, automotive manufacturers began to augment their product lines with wide varieties of differing vehicle models--e.g., coupes, sedans, station wagons, pickup trucks, etc., each in multiple brand-name versions--and, shortly thereafter, consumers found that they could not only select from a wide range of vehicles manufactured by any given domestic manufacturer, but, additionally, they found that the number of manufacturing sources had grown significantly due to the importation of similar wide ranges of vehicle models from many foreign manufacturers.
As those skilled in the art will appreciate, the construction of vehicle windshields, roof lines and body frames varies widely from manufacturer to manufacturer and from model to model for any given manufacturer; and, for the most part, the configurations employed are unique to each different vehicle model made by each different manufacturer. In short, manufcturers of exterior visors for automotive vehicles were quickly faced with the need to offer their visors in thirty (30), forty (40), or more shapes and sizes which are compatible with the particular vehicle on which the visors are to be used. This created a problem not only for the visor manufacturer, but, also for the automotive parts distributors and retailers who are called upon to order and stock meaningful quantities of many different visor models. To make matters worse, each visor was, and still is, separately packaged in a box that commonly ranges from about 55" in length to about 70" in length, or more, and on the order of up to 40", or more, in girth--viz., twice the sum of heighth plus depth. Thus, each boxed visor commonly occupies anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 cubic feet of storage space, or more; and, consequently, for a given merchant to stock ten visors each for forty different automotive vehicle models often requires dedication of warehouse space in excess of 1200 cubic feet or more.
A further problem faced by visor manufacturers, suppliers and users is the fact that the very nature of an exterior visor and the environment in which it is used--e.g., high wind conditions, high speeds, etc.--requires that the visor have sufficient inherent resiliency so as to prevent damage to the vehicle body structure on which the visor is mounted. Thus, a typical commercially available visor used during the 1970s and 1980s prior to the advent of the present invention will be subjected to significant front edge "flutter"--often a movement of from 1/8" to as much as 7/8" depending upon the materials from which the visor is made, the configuration of the visor and the vehicle's body structure in the region of visor attachment, and the wind conditions to which the visor is subjected. Efforts to reduce this degree of resiliency and front edge visor "flutter" by, for example, making the visor of rigid non-resilient materials or of relatively thick materials have proven counterproductive for many reasons. For example, the cost of materials and of manufacturing becomes prohibitively high with steel and thickened plastic materials, as does the cost of shipment of the product from the manufacturing source to the distributor/warehouser and on to the retailer. Moreover, as the visors become more rigid, greater and greater energy forces are transmitted to the vehicle's support structure, often resulting in buckling of the vehicle roof or body.
Yet another significant problem faced by manufacturers, suppliers and users of exterior automotive vehicle visors has been the inherent incompatibility of such products with bug deflectors of the type in common use today, particularly in those geographic regions where bugs present a severe problem for drivers. Thus, bug deflectors are, in general, designed to create a generally horizontally oriented cyclonic vortex of moving air which entrains bugs, small stones and other foreign objects and which moves upwardly over the vehicle windshield with the bugs and other objects being ejected from the cyclonic vortex at its opposite extremities. This cyclonic vortex generates tremendous forces which tend to tear exterior automotive visors from their mountings, thus destroying the visor and, often, damaging the vehicle body structure at those points where the visor is mounted. As a consequence, visor manufacturers have, for the most part, been required to warn consumers that their visors are not to be used on vehicles having bug deflectors; and, this has, for all practical purposes, foreclosed most visor manufacturers from supplying visors to consumers in certain geographic regions where bug deflectors are commonplace. Indeed, the problem has created severe warranty problems for visor manufacturers since they cannot readily ascertain and/or prove that a damaged visor returned under warranty has been damaged because the user had a bug deflector. It should, however, be noted that it is technically possible to provide heavier and thicker visors which are capable of use with bug deflectors; but, as previously indicated, such visors are extremely costly in terms of manufacture and shipping costs; and, further, subject the vehicle support structure to undesirable fatigue problems.
Yet another problem inherent with exterior automotive vehicle visors that has plagued the industry is related to that significant segment of the consuming public who demand chrome accessories for use with their vehicles. The technology for chrome plating synthetic plastic and/or fiberglass products and the like is well known; but, plating facilities capable of handling and chrome plating products ranging up to 70" or more in length and on the order of 40" or more in girth are very few in number and generally located only in close proximity to automobile manufcturers who have a continuing need for such facilities. Therefore, visor manufacturers who are geographically remote from such facilities are simply unable to meet the demand of this particular market segment unless they are willing to ship their product cross country from the point of manufacture to a chrome plating facility and back, a prohibitively costly procedure.
Finally, conventional exterior visors for automotive vehicles create a significant cost problem in "special order" situations. Thus, in those instances where a visor manufacturer is located at a remote point from the market he wishes to serve--for example, the visor manufacturer may be on the West coast and wish to serve the market on the East coast--it is necessary that the manufacturer provide or obtain a distribution system which is capable of storing a sufficient quantity of the manufacturer's visor product line--which, as previously indicated, often includes up to forty or more different visor models--to meet anticipated market requirements. Occasionally the distributor and/or retainer will run out of a particular model that is needed by a given customer who will then request that the supplier "special order" his product from the manufacturer. Shipment of single products by commercial carrier can be, at best, an expensive project. Given the nature and size of the products involved, the most expedient type of shipment of single products is via United Parcel Service (UPS) or similar common carrier. A conventional exterior visor when packaged may weigh, for example, on the order of only about 4 pounds; but, as previously indicated, it will have a girth of up to on the order of 40" or more and a length of from about 55" to about 70", or more. United Parcel Service regulations provide that any package, regardless of its relatively low weight, must be shipped at the rate for a twenty-five pound package if its length plus its girth exceeds 84". In short, this means that the shipping costs to fill a "special order" demand for a single out-of-stock visor will be increased from on the order of $3.60 for shipment of a four pound package from coast to coast to more than $13.00, the rate charged for a twenty-five pound package. Neither the manufacturer nor the dealer can or will absorb this significant shipping charge; and, while the customer might be willing to absorb a $3.60 shipping charge, he will normally be unwilling to agree to absorb charges on the order of four times that amount.
As previously stated, conventional exterior visors for automotive vehicles fall within a wide range of differing constructions and designs. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,777,732--Walsh is typical of a conventional "flush-mounted" exterior visor construction wherein the visor comprises a single piece of material that spans the vehicle's width and is secured to the vehicle roof in a "flush-mounted" condition. Australian Patent No. 229,957 and U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,566,934--Dieterich, 2,673,117--Krusemark, 4,320,919--Butler and Des. 261,500--Butler, on the other hand, typify conventionally available visors of the "flow-through" variety wherein the trailing edge of the visor is spaced from the vehicle body structure so as to permit air to flow therethrough and eliminate pressure buildups.
Yet another type of commercially successful exterior automotive vehicle visor is that disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. Des. 252,680--Kingsley et al, and 4,412,698--Kingsley. Thus, in this construction the visor includes a centrally located, rearwardly opening scoop which flares upwardly, outwardly and rearwardly from the leading edge of the visor. Such scoop serves to impart structural rigidity to the visor thus tending to minimize front edge "flutter", while, at the same time, permitting air to flow-through the scoop and thereby minimizing pressure buildups under the visor.
All of the foregoing known prior constructions are, however, typified by the inclusion of a single visor element which spans the width of the vehicle--i.e., which commonly ranges from 55" to 70", or more, in width. All are normally devoid of a central support or bracket except to the extent that the scoop in the aforesaid Kingsley patented constructions provides a modicum of additional strength. And, because of their size, each of the conventional visors is subject to all of the problems discussed above.